Eyes High

Tom actually gave Shiv excellent advice about playing both sides. His warning that there's a chance that Logan would do the same thing to Shiv that he did to Kendall could be foreshadowing. The demise of Vaulter seemed inspired by the end of Gawker, although the circumstances were different.

I think Simone needs to be in control at all times. Etienne said something about how she wouldn't allow anyone to get close to her, and I guess that would also mean giving up control (something that seems to be anathema to her). Jake is under her thumb completely. She allowed Tess to get close enough because she knew that Tess worshipped her (and lashed out at Tess when Tess questioned her relationship with Jake). The restaurant, even though Simone is smart enough to know that it's a dead end, is a perfect little ecosystem she feels she can control completely, right down to telling Howard what to do, whereas she seems to have been out of her depth in France with Etienne's family and lifestyle. Better to reign in Hell than serve in Heaven, I guess. It's been a little satisfying seeing Simone act out and come apart at the seams, after having to deal with her smugly dispensing words of wisdom and acting above everything for the better part of two seasons. Any person who says they never swooned over a hot jerk is lying. I mean, this is a coming of age story, and swooning over assholes because they're exciting and transgressive while overlooking nicer people because they're too safe, boring and predictable is definitely part of being young. So Tess being entranced with Jake not in spite of, but because of his horrible behaviour is very realistic. Jake's a ridiculous character, when it comes down to it. He's almost a parody of the obnoxious, pretentious assholes girls in their twenties fall for, right down to the artistic hobby, the mommy issues, the rudeness, the tattoos, the drinking (to conceal his great inner suffering), etc. Tom Sturridge is playing Jake as if he's in on the joke. If she's that rich, the paychecks probably don't mean anything to her. Ari being rich and working at the restaurant out of loneliness explains a lot about her. She has been there for so long and, it's implied, has acquired so much knowledge and experience within that time that it's difficult to replace her. Simone should remember that as she once warned Tess, everyone's expendable. One thing I don't get about Simone and Jake is this thing that Simone "raised" Jake. How old is Jake supposed to be? Simone and Jake's actors are only three years apart.

Nothing wrong with the specialty, but my point was that Naomie finding herself a doctor boyfriend who just happens to have the same specialty as Cam's husband doesn't exactly disprove the contention that Naomie wants Cam's life.

It is kind of weird that Cameran is married to an anesthesiologist and Naomie is dating an anesthesia resident. I mean, there are other specialties, you know? Craig is hilarious. When Austen told him to fuck off, he instantly noped out of there. The Vulture recapper for this episode said that Kathryn's boyfriend looks like he studies comparative literature at a second-tier university, which is an oddly specific yet completely accurate burn. Kathryn really is stunning with (the right) makeup. Without her brows and eyes done, she just gets completely washed out.

BuffyASummers0717 at Southern Charm Reddit has you covered: Honestly, Naomie is young, famous (or at least fame-adjacent) and attractive, and she could do much better than Metul. He probably knows it, too, which is why he keeps making these nasty little remarks to cut her down to size. It is also possible that being mean is just how he is. Either way, he's an asshole. Naomie's mom being all in favour of this relationship makes me seriously question her judgment. Also, is Metul "husband material"? He sure does not have a husband material personality. If he's that mean and critical with her, imagine how he'd be with their kids. He doesn't deserve your butter chicken, much less your hand in marriage, girl. Run away.

I was initially willing to give Metul the benefit of the doubt the first time he said something questionable (mocking her cooking), but nope, he’s the woooorst. He makes these little jabs to bring Naomie down and make her feel bad. What a hateful piece of shit. Can we keep Madison and get rid of Shep?

Tom's reaction to the affair (which didn't jeopardize his position in Shiv's life) was evidence enough of his love for Shiv. As with all of these cruel, bullying, selfish assholes, it's definitely fair to question whether any of them is truly capable of love, Tom included, so I think you can say that insofar as Tom can love anyone, he loves her. As for Tom thinking that Shiv would never ditch him, Tom certainly doesn't act like someone who is secure in that relationship. He's constantly angling for Shiv's approval. He even asked her permission to kick Nate out of the wedding. It's possible that Shiv's ascendance in the company will prompt her to get rid of Tom, now that she's basking in Logan's approval and wants to make him proud. However, that's very different from the contention that Shiv has been plotting to get rid of Tom since he proposed to her, which is completely absurd. Look at how brutal these people are with their personal relationships. Look at how swiftly and capriciously Roman dumped Grace, a relationship of significant duration (since Grace complains that they haven't had sex in six months). Shiv is no different. If Shiv truly wanted Tom gone from her life, New York, the company, all of it, he'd be gone, and he would have been gone long before Shiv married him. No "plotting," no secret manoeuvring, just "Get out, I'm done."

And yet Shiv knew that he was a ridiculous, groveling dullard and that he was beneath her (as Logan pointed out) and married him anyway, and certainly no one forced her hand or encouraged the relationship. Maybe she only feels comfortable in a relationship with someone who's dependent on her, as seems to be the case with Connor and his paid companion, or Logan saving the caring father act until after Kendall has been completely destroyed and neutralized as a possible threat. She plotted his exit by...marrying him? Not exactly the best plan. It's a lot easier and cleaner to extricate yourself from a boyfriend than a husband, no matter how ironclad the prenup. Shiv clearly holds all the power in that relationship: emotional power (loving Tom less--if at all--than he loves her), financial power, career power, etc. Tom is completely dependent on her continued goodwill. And if Shiv wanted Tom gone from her life, he'd be gone: Logan would like nothing more than to pack Tom off, never to be heard from again in Shiv's circles. The only thing keeping Tom in Shiv's life is Shiv.

Someone needs to sit Tess down and tell her that Simone and Jake have been doing their codependent little dance long before she was in their lives, and they'll be doing it long after she's out of their lives. I don't think Simone is capable of loving anyone. Sometimes this show feels like a Greatest Hits of 2006, and it feels a little perfunctory on the part of the writers. Remember when you had to get around without Google Maps? Remember when The Secret was a big deal?

Danny Huston's banker character was fascinating: a very serious, powerful presence in a show full of absurd, unserious people. His speech warning Logan to sell was excellent ("Tech has its hands around your throat"). If Season 1 was about breaking Kendall, will Season 2 be about breaking Shiv?

Yeah, it's often a conceit in movies/TV that a court will seriously entertain arguments that a child should be removed from the care of their parent simply because that parent is either poor, or not poor but not as rich as the relative wanting care of the child. Not how it works! As for grandparent rights when it comes to Ziggy, at least, in California, as with certain other jurisdictions, the law requires that there be a pre-existing relationship between the grandparent and the grandchild. So in real life, Mary Louise would be SOL if she tried to go that route. Betty Grable references are what happen when you have a man over 60 writing the scripts, but yeah, good writing is tailoring the voices to the characters. David E. Kelley should know better.

I think it's a testament to Meryl Streep's acting (and the hair/makeup/costuming, which is on point) that I cannot physically bear to watch Mary Louise's scenes all the way through. I've never been triggered by a mere character in TV/film before, but Mary Louise triggers me. If you've ever had a woman like Mary Louise in your life, I think you'll understand (and also, I'm sorry). Dr. Bo Peep was awesome. Can she come back? I loved how she switched from her high-pitched "child" voice to her businesslike professional voice. I know the plot requires that Amabella be at the same school as the other kids, but from everything we've seen, there's no way Renata wouldn't have had her child homeschooled from the start with specialized tutors. The principal who is 1,000% done with the parents' bullshit is great. Yeah, pushing to get too serious too soon is normally a classic red flag for potential future abuse.

I'm guessing the omission of the actual explanation was done to protect Ziggy's actor. I don't know exactly how old I was when I figured out was rape was, but I know it was older than that. I read somewhere a long time ago that Meryl's acting was terrible because she was guilty of "indicating," and this is some sort of actorly mistake. I don't know what "indicating" means, but maybe that's the sort of thing you're mentioning.

Right, because that was the niggling discrepancy between Meryl and Alexander Skarsgard's looks as playing a mother and son. The teeth.

Renata screaming "WILL SOMEBODY GIVE A WOMAN A MOMENNNNNT???" while driving away was iconic. Runner-up was her hissing at her spectacularly pathetic husband "I will not not be rich!" ...I always figured Ed knew about Madeline's affair, judging from 1x07. I guess the whole thing is Madeline never admitting to it...? I'm really missing Vallee's direction from Season 1. A big comedown.

Unlikely. KD was in no position to make a choice given the stakes. He was obviously facing enormous pressure, from the fans, from the media, from this bullshit macho sports culture that encourages players to play through injuries, and from the team. It was the team's responsibility to protect KD, from those pressures and from himself if necessary. The team failed. It's shameful. Kendrick Perkins compared it to locking the pool door so that his kids won't drown. They may want to go out and swim in the pool despite how dangerous it is, but it's your responsibility to protect them, even from themselves. Saying that the Warriors were justified in putting this choice on KD is completely tone-deaf given the circumstances. Would you really expect him to be in any position to refuse? And really, it was win-win for the Warriors. If KD played and did well, they would be that much closer to a threepeat. If he got injured, he was going to free agency anyway, so whatever. They played Russian roulette with his health and paid the price. It was supremely irresponsible at best, shockingly callous at worst. I couldn't believe Bob Myers had the gall to go on TV and cry crocodile tears at how awful KD's injury was. The nerve of these people. Klay and KD are out, possibly permanently in KD's case, and their bench strength is pathetic. And as was made very clear, Steph Curry is no LeBron. So no, the dynasty is over. Not a moment too soon, given this disgraceful KD business. They deserved to be annihilated. If they had won, it would have validated their treatment of KD and Klay in the eyes of many as a necessary, hard sacrifice to win. Instead, it's exposed for the reckless, negligent nonsense it was, and hopefully it will lead to some soulsearching.

No one can convince me that KD wasn't pressured to play. And now he ruptured his Achilles and his career is in the toilet. Not that the Warriors give a shit because KD was up for free agency. I doubt they would have been in such a rush to get him back on the court if he were resigned for several years, but I guess since he was up for free agency, he was pretty much disposable, right? Fuckers. And then after playing Klay and KD injured because they were that greedy for a threepeat, they not only lost the series but they lost two star players to severe injuries in Games 5 and 6. If they'd allowed KD to rest in Game 5, they probably would have lost, but they'd have spared Klay and KD their injuries. Instead, they played both KD and Klay, both players got horribly injured, and they lost anyway. Serves the Warriors fucking right. Dynasty deservedly ended. You sacrificed KD's career for nothing. Chew on that in the offseason, assholes. In between KD, Klay and Looney, the Warriors medical staff also have a lot to answer for. Disgraceful. Kendrick Perkins pointed out that players should always keep in mind that the doctors work for the team, not the players.

No, there's being on the spectrum, and then there's being an asshole. The two are not the same thing, although TV shows written by uninformed idiots would have you believe otherwise. It's also ableist as fuck to suggest that people on the spectrum are inherently rude assholes. They are not, and there are many, many neurotypical people who act like rude dicks. Surfer dude was being a dick, and that's all there is to it. Also, being "direct" is not the same thing as being nasty and rude, although dicks like this fellow often take refuge in the claim that they're just being "refreshingly" blunt (the "I'm just being honest!!!" defence of assholes everywhere). There's nothing "refreshing" or novel about acting like a nasty person and making mean comments. Surfer dude was guilty of rudeness, not directness. But I suppose if he has nice hair, that's all that matters, right?

I really hope Jane’s surfer coworker isn’t supposed to be a love interest, because he came off as a spectacular dick. Rudely asking if Jane was on the spectrum? Implying that dancing by yourself when you think you’re alone is “psycho” behaviour? Making her feel insecure about her job? Needling her about being one of the Monterey Five? Bastard. It’s too bad they wrote out Tom the barista. He was very sweet.

Jeffcoat has always been a ridiculous character, so I can't say I'm sorry to see him gone. Chuck cussing out Jeffcoat in Italian was cringeworthy, even for this show. Krakow is one of the show's great minor characters, and he was a lot of fun in this episode. Why did the writers need to "explain" why Taylor realized that something was off about Rudy's pitch by tying it to the aria Rudy chose? Sometimes things just smell wrong, and Taylor must have some sort of instinct in that department by now. (There's a great story about how Bernie Madoff, a matter of weeks before his Ponzi scheme was outed, made a pitch to billionaire Kenneth Langone seeking a $500 million "investment." Langone realized that something was off and ultimately decided not to invest.) It's gotten pretty shameless. "New Year's Day" for an episode on New Year's Day? "Saboteurs" for when Axe decides to fuck over Rebecca? The Pogues for an Irish bar scene?

While I'm used to text postcripts in historical films/TV shows, I was shocked to see the postscript explain that Ulana Khomyuk was a fictional composite character. Composite characters are a standard feature of historical dramas, but I've never seen a postscript state that before. It seems incredibly unfair that Dyatlov whose incompetence was in no small part responsible for the disaster got to live another nine years after Chernobyl, while Akimov and Toptunov died swiftly of acute radiation sickness in what I can only imagine was horrifying pain. This was an excellent series, hopefully leading to bigger and better things for Craig Mazin who wrote some great scripts here. Beautiful, bleak, and a stunning attention to detail as Slava Malamud's live tweets on the series will attest. Fantastic acting as well. I've seen several complaints that no cast members look credibly Russian or even Eastern European except maybe Barry Keoghan (Pavel) or Paul Ritter (Dyatlov), but I've never known what "looking Eastern European" is supposed to mean, and I'm of Eastern European extraction myself.

A poster on the r/asoiaf subreddit, Fizzywhizz, has a very interesting claim about Fire & Blood: GRRM buried the ending to ASOIAF in Fire and Blood (and the resolution of the Dance of the Dragons). This ground had been canvassed before (in AWOIAF and in The Princess and the Queen), but Fire and Blood adds some details that make the comparison very striking: In the first DOTD, a bloody conflict between the female claimant (Rhaenyra) and the male claimant (Aegon II) resulted in Aegon II feeding Rhaenyra to her dragon, but not long surviving her as ruler. Rhaenyra's son, Aegon III, ended up ascending the throne at the age of 11 after all the other potential claimants were killed off in the DOTD. Aegon III was able-bodied, but according to Fire and Blood he was dubbed the Broken King by a Grand Maester due to his melancholy nature and is remembered as a "shadowy monarch who did little and said less." Aegon III's first Hand (after Cregan Stark who only served briefly as Hand before resigning the office), Tyland Lannister, was a disabled and disfigured man called the Hooded Hand, since he wore a hood to hide his mutilated face. During the DOTD, Tyland had served Aegon II and was an active participant in the Rhaenyra/Aegon II conflict, and Rhaenyra's torturers blinded, gelded, and disfigured him for his trouble. Tyland didn't last long as Hand (only two years before he died of illness), but Aegon III's last Hand was his brother Viserys, who served several kings and later briefly ruled as king himself, and who was notoriously later rumoured to have poisoned his nephew Baelor to claim the throne (as Tyrion was once accused of poisoning Joffrey). Oberyn and Tyrion have a discussion about Viserys in ASOS where Oberyn slyly compares Baelor to Joffrey. ...Interestingly, in Fire and Blood, a council of regents was set up to rule when Aegon III first ascended the throne. Tyland as Hand was supposed to be beholden to them, but he gradually took more and more power for himself and the council became more or less irrelevant. Maybe a similar council will be established at the end of ADOS, with a similar end result. I very much doubt Jon or (f)Aegon will end up feeding Dany to Drogon, but it sounds like the same end result: the original rival claimants dead (or out of the picture, as in Jon's case), a checked-out, "broken" boy king who ascends the throne by virtue of outlasting the others, and a cunning Lannister Hand who rules in all but name. As a bonus, Fire and Blood also introduced Elissa Farman, who ended up sailing west of Westeros and was never heard from again (although it's hinted that she ended up back in Essos eventually, since her old ship was believed to have been seen in Asshai).

I agree. I mean, for the sake of argument, let's assume we're only trying to fix S8, and that everything before S8 is set in stone. Let's also assume we know that the storyline has to hit certain immutable beats (most or all of which I assume came from GRRM): the final battle with the AOTD is at Winterfell, Dany burns down all of KL, Jaime and Cersei die together in KL, Jon kills Dany, Bran becomes king, Sansa becomes QITN, Jon is exiled to the NW, Arya leaves Westeros forever, and Tyrion becomes Bran's Hand. Finally, let's assume that we only have the same amount of time (give or take 440 minutes, or approximately 7.5 hours) worth of episodes to hit those beats. ...Personally, given those constraints, I don't know how much could really be fixed. You still only have six episodes to take Dany from madly in love with Jon to being killed by him. You still have Bran's robotic TV characterization to deal with. You still have Jon's parentage amounting to nothing in the end except a source of conflict between Jon and Dany. There are some changes I think would improve things: 1. Making Bran seem less detached and more kingly, and showing other characters pick up on this. Have Tyrion/Bran have a conversation about power and what's best for Westeros (of the type he had with Varys). 2. Having Jon volunteer to go to the NW to protect Bran's crown and to ensure that no one can use his own claim against Bran. 3. Eliminating the Bronn assassination subplot. 4. Making more space in 8x06 for proper epilogue stuff (Sansa releasing Brienne from her service, e.g.) by cutting the long scenes of Jon and Tyrion walking through the city. 5. Leaning into the idea that Tyrion's love for Dany was blinding him to her true nature, instead of Tyrion randomly announcing in 8x06 to Jon that he was in love with her, too. I mean, heck, Varys could have thrown this in his face in 8x04 when they were arguing over Dany. 6. Giving Arya's NK kill to Jon. It did nothing for Arya's arc and it would have gone some ways to fuel Dany's jealousy of Jon. 7. Include in-text explanations for some of the dumber decisions the characters make, like a line of dialogue where the characters dismiss the danger in the crypts because they don't think the NK will use his resurrection powers, or a line of dialogue that shows that Jon's dragonriding was at the very least raising eyebrows about his parentage, or a line of dialogue at the war council where the possibility of Arya assassinating Cersei is discussed. 8. Eliminating the Gendry/Arya sex scene, Gendry legitimization, and his wedding proposal. The same thing could be achieved by Gendry reaching out to Arya and trying to make plans with her, only to get gently shot down with "That's not me." 9. Showing the cracks in Dany's confident, genial facade in 8x01 and 8x02 more clearly, like a hint of genuine menace or danger in 8x02 with Sansa or having more of a rage meltdown with Tyrion. ...Still, most of this is purely cosmetic. I'm not sure that the elective monarchy idea is from GRRM. I actually prefer the idea of Bran and Tyrion just taking over in the power vacuum after Dany's death. You can still have the council scene, but instead of the lords and ladies electing Bran because he has the best story, it would be Bran and Tyrion announcing that Bran's going to be king, the North is seceding, no one else gets to secede, and everyone's going to have to just shut the fuck up and get over it.

I wish GRRM would either make Tyrion being half-Targ canon or shut it down as a theory definitively once and for all in interviews or in one of the associate Westeros histories (something he's been happy to do with other fan theories). Instead he keeps teasing fans, most recently by introducing yet another Targ in Fire and Blood with mismatched eyes (one green and one violet). Either shit or get off the pot, dude. GRRM made a mysterious comment on his blog years ago about Tyrion flying (or words to that effect). If you need Valyrian blood to fly a dragon (and to be fair that's not at all established), I could see GRRM making Tyrion half-Targ just so he could get the opportunity to ride a dragon. My main argument against Tyrion being half-Targ was that I didn't see the storyline point of it; as a bastard, he would have no claim, and he'd have no way of truly knowing or proving it either way (with all the involved parties like Aerys and Joanna long dead). With Jon's legitimacy and true parentage in the show ultimately amounting to very little and only serving to drive a wedge between him and Dany, though, I guess anything's possible. Maybe GRRM couldn't resist the idea of the person carrying on the Lannister legacy Tywin was so obsessed with not actually being Tywin's son. It would be pretty funny if after the inevitable Targ-related carnage and infighting over claims past ADWD involving (f)Aegon, Dany and I imagine eventually Jon, half-Targ Tyrion managed to sneak past everyone and end up in a position of power (apart from the distant Targ descendants like the Baratheon bastards, Brienne, Brown Ben Plumm, etc.).

There's no NK in the books, D&D have made it clear that Arya killing the NK was their idea, and the idea of killing the WWs killing the wights they created seems like an idea of D&D's, but I'm not convinced that the way it plays out in the books will be all that different. Remember this from the EW cover story from November 2018: At the very least, we can conclude that in the books there will be some sort of final showdown at Winterfell that results in victory for the living.